The T-62

[sunday]

Amazing find.

Could be useful for firing canister, also.

[bojan]

While canister round exists for 115mm gun (as well for 125mm), it is sort of white whale - there are few sightings and rumors of use, but nothing that could be really sustained.

[Mikel2]

Wouldn't the shift in center of gravity of the gun really screw up the stabilizer's operation?

[bojan]

Apparently not enough to matter as a quick and dirty fix, as a text on link notes that tank has served as convoy escort for two weeks before having gun finally replaced.

Edited January 27, 2022 by bojan

[alejandro_]

I am looking at the T-62M and MV characteristics, as there were recently deployed in Ukraine. A table can be found in the link below. 

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/T62/mk201705/

T-62M weight reaches 41.55-42 tons, which according to Soviet sources affected reliability. Could this be the reason for T-62MV development? Kontakt-1 ERA might be more effective than the BDD modules against HEAT but it does not provide any protection against KE ammo. As a comparison, T-62MV weight is 38.4 tons, just 1 more than base model.

Were there other reasons? Perhaps industrial, Kontakt-1 was being manufactured in large numbers and was simple to apply.

Edited June 22, 2022 by alejandro_

[Wiedzmin]

1 hour ago, alejandro_ said:

Soviet sources affected reliability

Which sources exactly?

[Gavin-Phillips]

Was the T-62 ever fitted with K-5 ERA instead of K-1?

Interesting weight range for the T-62M.  I do recall reading that the underbelly armour which gave increased protection against mines was not popular as it decreased off-road mobility?  

[alejandro_]

Quote

Which sources exactly?

http://btvt.info/1inservice/t62.htm

[Wiedzmin]

ah, no any actual numbers, ok

[alejandro_]

1 hour ago, Wiedzmin said:

ah, no any actual numbers, ok

Well, the running gear is falling before warranty expires, so that is fairly accurate... 

Regular running gear units do not work reliably enough and fail before reaching the warranty operating time:

increased wear of track roller tires due to high contact
stresses in the area of interaction between the tire and the treadmill;
rapid wear of the shanks of the balancers due to the high load of the suspensions and road wheels;
low power consumption of regular hydraulic shock absorbers;
low reliability of the bolting of the rims of the drive wheels due to high traction forces caused by an increase in the mass of the tank.

The shortcomings noted above, consisting in a decrease in the performance of road wheels, suspension units, including the balancer support, drive wheels and shock absorber, reduce the reliability of the chassis of the upgraded T-62 tank.

To improve ride smoothness, the dynamic travel of the road wheels has been increased from 135… 149 mm to 162…. 182 mm due to the use of torsion shafts made of steel of electroslag remelting and having passed a double cycle of captivity.

[Wiedzmin]

6 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Well, the running gear is falling before warranty expires, so that is fairly accurate.

Means pretty much anything, falling at 50% of life time? 30%,80%?

[alejandro_]

28 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

Means pretty much anything, falling at 50% of life time? 30%,80%?

It probably means that MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) is below agreed value. Why would they raise the issue if the vehicle is reliable?

[Wiedzmin]

2 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Why would they raise the issue if the vehicle is reliable?

Having no any real report on hand i can't tell, maybe this is conclusion on experiment batch after which they reinforced all what needed, maybe failure rate is not that high, etc

[alejandro_]

16 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

Having no any real report on hand i can't tell, maybe this is conclusion on experiment batch after which they reinforced all what needed, maybe failure rate is not that high, etc

But then T-62MV is developed with a substantial reduction in weight.

[Wiedzmin]

18 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

But then T-62MV is developed with a substantial reduction in weight.

do we have report on "main reason of T-62MV - weight reduction" ? + logically they must retrofit all T-62M and T-55AM with K1 istead of heavy armor kit, but none, and "heavies" is most common version, so it looks strange, i'm not trying to defend anything here, but without exact numbers all this "was unrelible", well, how much unrelible it was ?

[Stefan Kotsch]

The T-62 can't really have been unreliable. Because the hull is basically the same as the T-55. And the T-55 was actually pretty reliable. Of course, if ensuring intensive maintenance. If the horseshoe armor caused weight overload, then so does the T-55AM. 

[Pavel Novak]

What I read was that additional armor caused issues to T-54/55AM2 and suspension needed upgrade. CZ also played with ERA instead of addon armor.

[Harkonnen]

54, 55 and 62 reliability

1 — объект 137; 2 — объект 155; 3 — объект 166.

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1968_01_nadeznost_t54_55_62.htm

[alejandro_]

3 hours ago, Pavel Novak said:

What I read was that additional armor caused issues to T-54/55AM2 and suspension needed upgrade. CZ also played with ERA instead of addon armor.

I was looking at an upgrade proposed to Peru and suspension was reinforced, but in this case weight went to 45 tons.
 

3 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

do we have report on "main reason of T-62MV - weight reduction" ? + logically they must retrofit all T-62M and T-55AM with K1 istead of heavy armor kit, but none, and "heavies" is most common version, so it looks strange, i'm not trying to defend anything here, but without exact numbers all this "was unrelible", well, how much unrelible it was ?

No, and this is why I ask. I am trying to understand the reason for moving from T-62M to MV. The M version offers extra protection against APFSDS while the MV should be more effective vs single HEAT warhead. Perhaps by the late 80s more emphasis was placed on HEAT protection as T-62 was largely replaced by other models.

[Wiedzmin]

33 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

HEAT warhead

Only vs RPG and ATGM, tank fired heat not affected by light ERA much, and will pen tank 

[Harkonnen]

The armored details of the sides of the hull were not pierced by 125-mm HEAT shells at a course angle of 30, and the technical combat capability of the tanks was preserved (in one case it was reduced after the destruction of the external fuel tank).
An analysis of the work carried out on the R & D "Katok" shows that the anti-cumulative resistance of T-62 tanks with ERA when hitting the armor parts of the frontal projection with 125-mm cumulative projectiles is at the level of resistance of these tanks without ERA when hit by 115-mm HEAT projectiles. So, out of 14 hits by the indicated shells on the tank, 11 hits caused penetration of the armor with the loss of its combat capability (9 penetrations led to a hit of the ammunition).
When testing the glacis mock-ups of the T-55 (T-62) tank with 100 mm shells 3BK3 in all 4 test hits, the mock-up was not penetrated. An analysis of the armor-piercing ability of HEAT shells showed that the 3BK-3 shell can be considered as en equivalent of 105-mm foreign HEAT shells [7].

[alejandro_]

Captured T-62 in the town of Maarat al-Numan, southwest of Aleppo. Note 2 cameras over gun barrel, perhaps a thermal camera or one of the LRF is faulty...

Photo: Omar Albam / AP